JUDGMENT - D.G. KARNIK, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 2. 2. The petitioner filed a return of his land holdings under the provisions of amended Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). An inquiry into the return was held by Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short “S.L.D.T.”). The S.L.D.T. after an inquiry, determined the holding of the petitioner and by an order dated 28th December, 1975, held that the petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent of 32 acres 32 gunthas. This order of the S.L.D.T. was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under section 33 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (for short “M.R.T.”). By an order dated 31st March, 1976, passed in Appeal No. 115/A/76, the M.R.T. dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Special Civil Application No. 4435/76 in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, which summarily dismissed it. The petitioner thereafter filed an application purporting to be an application under section 37 of the Act with the Collector alleging some errors in the order of the M.R.T. and alleging that the M.R.T. had not properly calculated the holding of the petitioner. This application was heard by the Deputy Collector, who, by an order dated 29th September, 1984, dismissed it. One of the reasons given by the learned Deputy Collector was that the application was filed beyond the period of three years from the initial declaration made by the S.L.D.T. and was, therefore, barred by limitation. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed before me three grounds challenging the order of the Deputy Collector. 4. It was firstly contended that the S.L.D.T. did not give a choice of selection of lands to be retained by the petitioner. It was contended that petitioner had a choice of selecting the surplus land under section 16 of the Act. This choice was denied and the S.L.D.T. itself has determined lands to be surrendered. It cannot be ascertained on facts, whether the choice was given to the petitioner and whether it was exercised by him, in these proceedings which were commenced on an application under section 37 of the Act. This choice was denied and the S.L.D.T. itself has determined lands to be surrendered. It cannot be ascertained on facts, whether the choice was given to the petitioner and whether it was exercised by him, in these proceedings which were commenced on an application under section 37 of the Act. However, it is not necessary to dwell into it because if the choice was not given, the petitioner could have and ought to have agitated the same ground in an appeal before the M.R.T. and in the Special Civil Application No. 4435/76, which he had filed before this Court. This ground was not agitated and the judgment has become final. 5. It was secondly contended that the Collector ought to have granted petitioner's application under section 37. As I have stated earlier, the order of the S.L.D.T. merged into the order of the M.R.T. on appeal. The Collector, certainly, cannot correct any alleged errors in the order of the M.R.T. under section 37 of the Act. In any event, if M.R.T. had committed any arithmetical error, the petitioner had an opportunity to point out the said error in Special Civil Application No. 4435 of 1976, which he had filed before this Court. Having failed to do so, the petitioner could not have filed second application under section 37 of the Act. 6. It was lastly contended that a consolidation scheme has been made applicable and under the consolidation scheme, some lands of the petitioner have been taken away. The exact date as to when the consolidation scheme was made applicable, when it was made final and whether it was prior to or subsequent to the commencement of the Act is not mentioned. If it was done prior to the commencement of the Act, the petitioner ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the S.L.D.T., when he filed the return under the Act. If it was done subsequently, then the said fact is irrelevant because the holding is to be computed as on the date of commencement of the Act. It is worthwhile to note that the ground that some area was taken away under the consolidation scheme was not taken in the appeal before the M.R.T. nor in the first writ petition. However, only by way of Civil Application No. 5919 of 1996, it was sought to be added as an after thought. 7. It is worthwhile to note that the ground that some area was taken away under the consolidation scheme was not taken in the appeal before the M.R.T. nor in the first writ petition. However, only by way of Civil Application No. 5919 of 1996, it was sought to be added as an after thought. 7. Hence, rule discharged with no order as to costs. -----